This question Is there a way to prevent another dog from pooping on our grass? was edited to change the emphasis of the question.
There are two answers one to the original, one to the second, what to do?
I disagree that the entire edit should have been rolled back.
There were several grammatical improvements made in the edit, that have now been reverted. The only issue I see with the edit is the change to the title. Making a second edit, to fix the title to cover both aspects of the question, would have been preferable to a full rollback.
Personally, I think people tend to place too much emphasis on the title. The title isn't the question. The title is merely a tool to help identify the most basic issue of the question. The actual question consists of all the details provided in the question body.
The edited version included both parts of the question from the original version: Would having the OP's dog mark the territory work? Are there other solutions besides the dog marking the territory?
I'm not sure if you consider my answer to be addressing the first version, or the second, as I consider my answer equally valid for both.
"Is there a way I can use my dog to make marks on the grass to notify the dog that there is another dog in the house?" was a part of the original version, and was present in the question when the other answer was posted, so I don't believe the edit can be blamed for altering the original meaning.
Both answer were answering one of the questions at the end of the question.
The core of the question remained, even after the title changed: "how can I prevent another dog from pooping on my lawn?" There is only a certain difference between accepting all answers or if the focus lies on using his own dog and also to accept alternatives.
I think the rollback to Rev1 was justified, the title is more open and reflects both alternatives and the use of his dog. I am however not sure if the first version (or looking for alternatives) is on topic, which might justify a change.